49 



bracteae, agree in their characters with Mr. Watson's QPj. Srailhii, and 

 quite differ from those of CE. Lachenalii. The same plant, or one 

 apparently the same, has been seen by me many years ago, as well as 

 lately, in meadows adjoining the river Wey, near Weybridge. Nei- 

 ther of these stations appears to be known to Mr. Watson ; to whom I 

 can also contribute an authentic station for his CE. pimpinelloides, 

 viz, a maritime bog at the little village of Bishopstone, near Scaford, 

 in Sussex, where I gathered unquestionable specimens in July, 1827. 

 While I am on the subject of this genus, I should be glad if any 

 of your correspondents could inform me whether they have ever found 

 the CK. crocata with the yellow acrid juice, which until lately has 

 been attributed to it by all botanists. I have examined numberless 

 living specimens of the plant in Surrey, and other counties around 

 London, for the express purpose, and have never, in any one single 

 instance, discovered the smallest vestige of such a juice. The asser- 

 tion is a curious example of the servile manner in which even scien- 

 tific observers copy each other's statements, without verifying them. 



J. S. Mill. 



Kensington, Januaiy, 1845. 



Observations on and Description of Calamintha sylvatica, a new 

 British Plant. By W. A. Bromfield, M.D., F.L.S. 



By this name I have judged it expedient, for reasons I shall pre- 

 sently give, to designate the species lately detected by me in the Isle 

 of Wight, and published in the 'Phytologist' for November, 1843, 

 (Phytol. 768). To that notice I wish to add a few remarks, and cor- 

 rect an error or two which occur, or have rather been left standing, 

 in the printed account. When that account was first sent to this 

 journal, I conceived our new plant to be the Calamintha grandiflora of 

 Mcench (Melissa grandiflora, Linn.), but soon discovering my mistake, 

 inserted it subsequently as the C. officinalis, in all probability, of the 

 continental botanists, amongst some of whom it certainly passes cur- 

 rent under that name, though not with all, as we shall see hereafter. 

 But in the foot-note (Id. 769), this my original mistake remains un- 

 corrected, and I am there made to call that Calamintha grandiflora, 

 which, in the body of the communication, is styled C. officinalis. 

 Moreover, the last seven lines of the same page should have been 

 erased, as they relate to C. grandiflora, and do not apply to our C. 

 sylvatica, which is a plant of the plains or of moderate elevations in 

 Vol. ri. h 



